Kolb v. Monmouth Mem'l Hosp.

• Decision Date: 31 January 1936
• Docket Number: No. 109.,109.
• Parties: KOLB v. MONMOUTH MEMORIAL HOSPITAL.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

182 A. 822

KOLB

v. MONMOUTH MEMORIAL HOSPITAL.

No. 109.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Jan. 31, 1936.

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Action by Philip Kolb against the Monmouth Memorial Hospital. From an adverse judgment, the defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Collins & Corbin, of Jersey City (Edward A. Markley and Charles W. Broadhurst, both of Jersey City, of counsel), for appellant.

Quinn, Parsons & Dorcmus, of Red Bank (Theodore D. Parsons, of Red Bank, of counsel), for respondent.

PERSKIE, Justice.

The question involved, in this case, concerns the tort liability of a charitable (hospital) institution. Respondent, plaintiff below, recovered a judgment, based on a jury verdict, against appellant, defendant below, in the sum of $12,000 for the injuries which he sustained as a result of the alleged negligence of the defendant in the premises. Upon a rule to show cause, allowed on the ground of excessive damages, it was reduced to $9,750, and was accepted by the plaintiff.

Various results, depending upon the particular theory adopted, have been reached by the courts of our sister states on the question of the liability of charitable institutions for its torts. It will serve no particular useful purpose here to recollate the illustrative cases. Suffice it to say that the holdings of these cases have been thus summarized: "* * * A number of states have, following the English dicta, exempted charities from all tort liability against beneficiaries as well as others on the ground that public policy demands that the trust fund be not diverted to paying damages. The great majority of courts, however, do justice to employees, strangers and invitees by holding the charity to the same degree of care exacted from other entities. In regard to beneficiaries they hold the charity liable for injuries resulting from the negligence of the trustees or managers in selecting incompetent servants, but not for the negligence of servants carefully selected." See 19 Michigan Law Review, 395, 412; U. of P. Law Review, vol. 77, No. 2, p. 191.

In our state we have adopted and followed what we believe to be the majority view; i. e., the public policy theory. Thus we deny the right of recovery on the part of those who have a valid claim against a charitable institution, based on actionable negligence, but who are either the recipients of the benefactions or the beneficiaries of the charitable institution sought to be held liable; but we permit the right of recovery against charitable institutions, for their actionable negligence, on the part of "those unconcerned in and unrelated to that which the donor brought into being or supports in operation." Simmons v. Wiley Methodist Episcopal Church, 112 N.J.Law, 129, 170 A. 237, 239.

Based on these principles, we have denied the right of recovery in a suit by a patient against the hospital, D'Amato v. Orange Memorial Hospital, 101 N.J.Law, 61, 127 A. 340; and we have likewise denied the right of recovery in a suit by a mother against a hospital for injuries sustained while visiting her daughter who was a patient therein, Boeckel v. Orange Memorial Hospital, 108 N.J.Law, 453, 158 A. 832, affirmed 110 N.J.Law, 509, 166 A. 146. On the other hand, we have permitted the right of recovery by one "unconcerned in and unrelated to" the charitable institution. Simmons v. Wiley Methodist Episcopal Church, supra (suit for injuries sustained by plaintiff while...